From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: eric.auger@linaro.org (Eric Auger)
Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2015 14:39:50 +0100
Subject: [PATCH v5 2/5] KVM: introduce kvm_arch_is_virtual_intc_initialized
In-Reply-To: <20150111211129.GD3868@cbox>
References: <1417622832-5460-1-git-send-email-eric.auger@linaro.org>
 <1417622832-5460-3-git-send-email-eric.auger@linaro.org>
 <20150111211129.GD3868@cbox>
Message-ID: <54B3CEA6.2030008@linaro.org>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

Hi Christoffer,
On 01/11/2015 10:11 PM, Christoffer Dall wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 03, 2014 at 05:07:09PM +0100, Eric Auger wrote:
>> Introduce __KVM_HAVE_ARCH_VIRTUAL_INTC_INITIALIZED define and
>> associated kvm_arch_is_virtual_intc_initialized function. This latter
>> allows to test whether the virtual interrupt controller is initialized
>> and ready to accept virtual IRQ injection. On some architectures,
>> the virtual interrupt controller is dynamically instantiated, justifying
>> that kind of check.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Eric Auger <eric.auger@linaro.org>
>> ---
>>  include/linux/kvm_host.h | 12 ++++++++++++
>>  1 file changed, 12 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/include/linux/kvm_host.h b/include/linux/kvm_host.h
>> index ea53b04..45fea3c 100644
>> --- a/include/linux/kvm_host.h
>> +++ b/include/linux/kvm_host.h
>> @@ -696,6 +696,18 @@ static inline wait_queue_head_t *kvm_arch_vcpu_wq(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>>  #endif
>>  }
>>  
>> +#ifndef __KVM_HAVE_ARCH_VIRTUAL_INTC_INITIALIZED
> 
> maybe you can drop the _virtual_ from all these names to make it
> slightly shorter.
ok. I chose that name to differentiate from the host irqchip. I will
drop "virtual".
> 
> alternatively to this approach you could expose a function from the
> irqfd layer that KVM intc implementations call into to say "I'm
> ready"...  Not sure if it would look nicer.
> 
>> +/*
>> + * returns trues if the virtual interrupt controller is initialized and
>> + * ready to accept virtual IRQ. On some architectures the virtual interrupt
>> + * controller is dynamically instantiated and this is not always true.
>> + */
>> +static inline bool kvm_arch_is_virtual_intc_initialized(struct kvm *kvm)
>> +{
>> +	return true;
>> +}
> 
> don't you need to define a prototype if the architecture does define the
> symbol?

yes I will move the declaration here

Thanks

Eric
> 
>> +#endif
>> +
>>  int kvm_arch_init_vm(struct kvm *kvm, unsigned long type);
>>  void kvm_arch_destroy_vm(struct kvm *kvm);
>>  void kvm_arch_sync_events(struct kvm *kvm);
>> -- 
>> 1.9.1
>>